Open question to Terry Gossett, Californians for Property Rights, and CCF:

Do you have an official position on CA Proposition 90?  Please let us know.

—Dan

Dan,

Do you?

Yes, I do.

OK, I’ll play.

I think it is bad. 

Can you let us know your position?

In my opinion, it’s awful.  As written, it allows developers to sue local governments for compensation if any restriction on property rights has a negative financial impact on the landowner.

http://www.noprop90.com/
http://www.noprop90.com/facts/environment.php

90 is written to look like a necessary step in eminent domain reform.  It’s not.  It’s a trojan horse, designed to fool the state’s voters into forfeiting the ability to regulate development and/or protect the environment.

It’s good to know that CPR isn’t behind this.

I wonder who is.

For more information about who is funding Propostion 90, please see Orange County blog, The Blotter:
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/blotter/whos-propping-up-prop-90/

(HINT: It’s out of town, out of State money).

For how Proposition 90 might affect local measures, here’s one example: Measure L in Pacifica

Should Measure L pass, Proposition 90 would enable the property owner to sue the city over ANY reduction or restriction of the development plan.

For a discussion of Measure L and the Pacifica Quarry project, please see:
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1482&[email protected]&name=Mary%20Keitelman&nick=MaryBeary&ts=1161625650&sig=kzoteNNpYA9ME0oYRj7ioiQw0jo=:R3kWvICx+rmK5Bbe8dbvMN/PX0w=

I just read that

Two years ago, voters in Oregon passed a measure similar to Proposition 90. Since then, wealthy developers in that state have filed nearly 3,000 claims demanding over $5 billion in compensation from local taxpayers.

Oregon communities can no longer regulate growth and development in a way that protects their way of life—and urban sprawl is now a greater threat than ever to the state’s precious wildlife habitat, farmlands and open spaces.

It’s such a mess in the state that, according to a poll earlier this month, Oregon voters now oppose the measure by nearly a 2-1 margin.

Originally, I was all enthusiastic about prop 90 because I think it’s an outrage for government to use eminent domain to take property from one owner just to give it to another private party under the pretense of collecting more tax from the new development.  Eminent domain should only be allowed when the property is needed for a public use (not just to generate more tax money from new private development), and it will remain in public ownership forever.

That said, I’m very disappointed to have to vote NO on 90.  It’s a disaster.

Hi Dan—

Speaking as an individual, What is not to like with Proposition 90? It states that private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation has been paid. 

To quote the US Supreme Court majority in the Kelo vs. City of New London case “We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.”

Prop 90 specifies those limits for the state of California.
In the dissenting opinion of the US Supreme Court Justice O’Connor states “To reason, as the court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  Accordingly I respectfully dissent.”

terry gossett

Proposition 90 is a radical legal change.  “Speaking as an individual” while valid of course, does not address the issue. 

Here’s a link to a discussion with a moderator by both sides of Proposition 90 hosted on KQED October 27 a.m.

http://www.kqed.org/programs/program-landing.jsp?progID=RD19

Just scroll down to find the link to the broacast—in mp3 or realmedia stream.

——————-
The conclusion on both sides is that lawsuits will be increased—to define the law if nothing else. What is much more concerning is the financial liability of the State—and taxpayers—of California.  Also agreed on by both sides.  The disastrous, divisive results of a parallel measure in Oregon are reviewed.

Hundreds of groups have come out against California’s Proposition 90, which is funded by multimillionaire East Coast real estate interests.

Add Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the list.

View the whole story of why the governor of California opposes Proposition 90:
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/69598.html

“Hundreds of groups have come out against California’s Proposition 90, which is funded by multimillionaire East Coast real estate interests.

Add Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the list. “

Uh-oh. Now I’ll have to take another look. Might want to support it after all with that guy against it.

Carl May